I feel the same,. . . . . I think he just snuck-up on us.

@@johnm.speight7983exactly. 😂👌🏾

@Dd S That's not an argument, dummy. Did you want some lessons in logic?

@Dd S Let's ask you a few questions first, before I school you in Thomism, which his how we prove a posteriori that God exists. What are you certain of, Dd S?

Certainty, certainty -- what is Dd S certain about?

@Dd S I see you're unable to answer simple questions like "what are you certain about?" If you can't answer simple questions, dummy, how will you learn that which is more difficult? The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other...

@Dd S BTW, dummy, I will stop referring to you as dummy, as soon as you show some intellectual honesty and integrity. Also, God loves even dummies like yourself.

I never heard that. Thanks Adam.

@Dd S It still is an interesting fact that Adam brought into the conversation. That's what this is - a conversation, albeit a digital one.

@Dd S Back at again, I see? If you have substantial proof that the gospels are not historical accounts, please, back it up with some solid evidence beyond your screaming through a computer screen. Otherwise, you will find your spiritual teeth getting kicked in. If not, I'm going to assume you have no training whatsoever in biblical history or interpretation and you like screaming your opinion at people. It's like watching someone throw iced cupcakes at a wall hoping something will stick. It's kind of sad, actually, reading your arguments.

@Dd S Even Ehrman says the gospels meet every standard of historicity better than just about any other historical fact we believe, but that the reason they are not true is simply that he chooses not to believe in anything supernatural, regardless of evidence. The fact that he thought the synoptics did not include the claim of divinity shows how big his blind spot is. He shuts his eyes, his heart and his mind to all evidence, as do you.

@Dd S You actually do illustrate a good point. You can cite Ehrman's words on both sides of most arguments, because he changes his own position just to have more bullshit to sell. I am sure his dead son is happy that he has a nice car now.

He seems like he has some reasonableness about him. He has defended against the mythicists, despite his own disbelief.

Please give an example of one such philosopher

Jesus presented His divinity in a Jewish context, reaffirming their monotheism. As far as all records we have are concerned He never once cited an eastern philosopher.

Except He was a jew, and he was speaking to Jews, so he would be speaking in the sense of "I am the son of man come to unite the twelve tribes" not "I am like a Buddhist God"

@Dd S Christ united the twelve as the apostles who would found His church. Nothing ancient about it, it is fulfilled.

@Dd S Why are you so angry? Polycarp, disciple of an apostle, wrote things down. We know what he believed. If you believe Christ is a myth you have to extend this to every other person from that time.

nobody in the early Church thought the claims were legend - they died cruel deaths as witnesses to the reality of Christ''s divinity, as documented by non-Christian historians of the time

@@angelicdoctor8016 Believing them to be true does not make them true. They may well be true but the argument presented is not sufficient. Christianity is a broad movement of faith. That faith, in and of itself, is valuable. Suffering religious persecution is not confined to Christians and is perpetrated by those calling themselves Christian to this day. I too consider myself Christian but my Christianity is based on following the simple, universal teachings attributed to Christ: the two great commandments. That, for me, is sufficient and proving or disproving Christ's divinity is not relevant.

@@paulreader1777 Hi Paul. Do you have a good reason for not belonging to the only Church that Christ established - the Catholic Church?

@@angelicdoctor8016 my church is catholic not Catholic.

@@paulreader1777 sorry Paul - that wasn't an answer to my question - it's OK if you prefer not to answer

+Ed Griffin Ed, with all due respect, you have a very poor understanding of how any rational person can use natural human reason to establish the existence of God. Using the Bible as simply a historical document, one can also come to a reasoned conclusion that Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to be, the Son of God, the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, Co-equal with the eternal Father and the Holy Spirit, fully God and fully Man. Any single piece of information/evidence may not, by itself, convince someone of this Truth. However, it is the convergence of multiple sources of knowledge, and weighing the totality of the evidence, which should help convince someone to the truth of the Faith. Although by no means exhaustive, some of this evidence, arguments, lines of reasoning, and otherwise inexplicable observations are as follows: -- Philosophical arguments -- Cosmological arguments and support from scientific evidence -- The intelligibility of our physical Universe and it's physical Laws -- The unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in describing nature -- Human consciousness, our rational soul, and our ability to apprehend the infinite. -- Historical records, including eyewitness testimony -- Fulfillment of prophecy in Sacred Scripture -- Documented miracles throughout history and up to and including the present time -- The lives of the Saints -- The establishment, growth, perseverance and endurance of the Catholic Church, against all odds, across 2000 years of history...spreading and teaching the Gospel to all peoples in all nations of the world (note that this is the fulfillment of a specific promise and guarantee of Divine assistance, by Christ) Every one of those general bullet points can be expanded with a multitudinous subset of specific examples, of which entire books have been written, and entire careers and lifetimes spent studying. You seem very dismissive of eyewitness testimony, and it's utility and power in making a persuasive, moving argument. I would ask that you consider the historical testimony and witness of the Apostles. These men witnessed the miracles that Christ performed. These people were eyewitnesses to our Lord. They weren't brainwashed, they weren't suffering mass hallucination and delusion. Originally, many were skeptics and doubters, right up until Christ's death and glorious Resurrection. They were, to a man, absolutely convinced that Jesus was exactly who He said He was, upon the miracle of his Resurrection. There is no other explanation for their subsequent behavior and dedication. There is no way the would do what they did for a lie, or to invent some myth. While many die for what they believe to be true (e.g. radical muslim terrorists), NO ONE knowingly and willingly dies for what they absolutely KNOW is a lie! The apostles and the 500+ other eye witnesses had nothing to gain but misery and death. If at any point they were faced with death, all they needed to do was admit that they had made it all up. They suffered unimaginable hardship and persecution (including physical assault and attacks meant to kill) in order to courageously preach the Kerygma to an often hostile population. In the end, most went to their deaths willingly, with full knowledge that extreme torture might be the opening act. They were horribly executed for what THEY THEMSELVES SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES! Not one of them denied the Kerygma, nor recanted. ------------------------------ Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound. Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead. Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his preaching. John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He was later freed and returned Ephesus in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully. Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross. He told his tormentors that he was unworthy to die the same way Jesus Christ had died. James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation. James, a leader of the church, was beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian. Bartholomew, also known as Nathanal, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was believed to have been flayed to death by a whip. He may have also been crucified. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired. Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent. Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. Matthias, Matthias was chosen by the Apostles to replace Judas Iscariot, after the death of Judas in the Field of Blood. Information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. One tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded. Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica. Phillip was crucified, according to the plaque in the church of the Holy Apostles.

@Dd S The only idiot here is you, Dd S. We've all noticed in your posts that you have no formal education in philosophy, history, theology, etc. Tell, me, dummy, what criteria do historians use to determine the authenticity and historicity of ancient documents? I can't wait for your mindless reply.

@Dd S Bottom FEEDER Dd S -- can you even understand the Quinque Viae?

@Dd S kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g92ead2U0LXHfJs.html

@Dd S kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gr-Xm6eCx9awipc.html

Obviously you did not listen to the presenter's argument. In fact, you are totally mischaracterizing it. You are presenting your opinion, as a factual representation of the presentation. That is highly disingenuous.

Well, Ed is right in one sense. The Exodus is often discussed in the books of the Old Covenant as proof of God's power and love, and those same books make a point that later generations maybe didn't dismiss the story but certainly did ignore it often, while more worried about their daily lives in this world. We see a similar phenomenon with more recent miracles. Take Fatima, for instance. Only a hundred years ago, and 70,000 witnessed the events that led to a conversion of a secular Portugal. And it inspired strong devotion among some, even today (added a line to the rosary, for instance), but for those of us who didn't see it, Fatima can also become an Exodus-like 'non-event,' even now, separated by only a century.

@Dd S Hey, it's dummy Dd S! You're obsessed with attacking good faithful and reasonable people. I'm happy to put you in your place and to give you the intellectual ass kicking you deserve. Hey dummy Dd S, why don't you offer us your understanding of the Quinque Viae of Thomas Aquinas? Sorry ... you didn't go to college/university? What about grade school? What a surprise, dummy. You will beg the Lord Jesus for mercy.

@Dd S Let's see your evidence against Fatima, dummy ....... LOL

@Dd S Dd S - the bottom feeder who can't understand the Quinque Viae!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!